To think it's selfish to deliberately plan to rent out the old house when you buy a new

[jdoe8]

I understand why people do it, its dog eat dog out there and people look after number 1 even if it means it screws others.

But how are the next generation going to ever afford to buy if people carry on doing this?

This makes for depressing reading especially the comments - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/26/the-sad-cost-of-renting-never-having-somewhere-to-call-home

I don't believe any generation worked any harder, you just had to be lucky and in the right place at the right time. Its very well to say just rent but renters have such poor rights in the UK it's very undesirable.

But I think in those circumstances you to mitigate it a bit- rent out to a relative/friend/colleague at mate's rates in exchange for knowing they'll treat the property well and you're cutting them a break to help them save.

Be wary of tax laws which require the property to be let at commercial open market value for family etc., or if not, you have to pay tax on the open market value rent whether you receive that or not!

Council tenants should move on if they start earning above a certain threshold.

I think the fact that council estates have a mix of higher earners, lower earners and benefit tenants is a good thing. I would hate to see people kicked out of their council houses because they started earning a bit more money. That would just lead to council housing being stigmatised and seen as a ghetto and would also lead to people resenting council tenants even further.

BarbarianMum absolutely this. If I could save the 40-50k I'd need to get a mortgage in London, I would. Unfortunately I'm paying more than double the mortgage on my current flat in rent. And I have lived in London since I was born - should've be a "privilege" to stay here.

TheLittlePaperbagPrincess so as long as they meet your criteria that's fine then

There's usually a bit of variation in local open market value, Badbadbunny so you could just go for the lowest end of that. Or you could also just take a tax hit of a few quid and recognize that you are fortunate to be in that position.

Not everyone minds paying tax. I don't mind paying tax. I think tax rates should be higher- you don't get good public services on very low tax rates. And before anyone starts on "it'd be different if it applied to you"- it does, we're top rate tax payers.

I'm just saying there's not usually much to be gained by being too doctrinaire or inflexible Frillyhorseyknickers- because there will always be exceptions to any rule however well worded.

I didn't say my criteria were the only reasons that make a difference. But a general attitude of not being out for every penny you can get whatever the consequences for yourself or others is usually a good start.

Whatever politicians might say I think there is no real political will to improve the housing situation. The cost of housing is one the measures used in calculating GDP - the main indication of the health of our economy. HIgh housing costs help keep GDP high and looking like the economy is thriving. High land costs also benefit landowners who hold a lot of political sway (many companies e.g. Tesco own a lot of land). Insecurity in housing and work due to population pressure( and lack of supply) keeps us all desperate to keep on the right track beavering away and in competition with one another. for scarce resources.

Even if say Corbyn was elected and built a million houses - they very likely wouldn't be where people would want/need to live (London etc). People don't relocate to say Durham a very nice part of the country where housing is reatively cheap and not in short supply at the moment. We have a large structural problem in England with London housing the banking industry, Creative industries, Parliament etc whereas in other countries like Germany the centres for key sectors are more widely spread.

Life is unfair. We live in a democracy - not everyone has the same wealth. TheLittlePaperbagPrincess are you honestly suggesting that with few exceptions, we should only be allowed to own one property per person in this county? What about those of us that are high earners, and have property which is let to people who cannot afford to buy any house, let alone the house they are renting? Where will they rent from?

I watched something on holiday cottages last night on Countryfile which again confused me. People in St Ives (Cornwall) not being able to purchase property in St Ives because the prices have been pushed out of their reach, and they need to be close by as they work in the town. The town whose income is 86% tourism. Tourism which wouldn't be supported without the supply of holiday accommodation. There would be lots of affordable housing and no jobs if that particular person had their way...

Gallivanting There is such a law! If you buy under RTB you are entitled to a discount on the market value but if you sell within five years you have to return some or all of it. After five years it's yours to sell at value and so it should be.

RTB should perhaps not have happened but it was immensely popular at the time - see the results of the election in 1983 - and so far as concerns properties already sold it's water under the bridge. If Labour want to learn about electoral wipe-out let them propose confiscating - with or without compensation - the houses sold since RTB started!

dog I notice you left the key detail out of your virtue signalling post about what area of the uk you live in.

TheLittlePaperbagPrincess There's usually a bit of variation in local open market value, Badbadbunny so you could just go for the lowest end of that. Or you could also just take a tax hit of a few quid and recognize that you are fortunate to be in that position.

If you change your mortgage on the rental property to a BTL mortgage there are usually exclusions about renting to family/relatives.

What 'Rights' do you think renters should have?

Not everyone minds paying tax. I don't mind paying tax. I think tax rates should be higher- you don't get good public services on very low tax rates

True.

its not selfish, its being economically advantaged - lucky for them

The right to a place that is safe and fit for human habitation? And for that right to be vigorously enforced seeing as in theory it already exists.

The right to move off a short term contract onto a longer term one after a couple of years (If they want to)?

BarbarianMum So you want to force LLs onto a longer term contract?

Another cunning plan to make renting impossible again.

How can it be selfish to rent rather than sell, when the would be tenants can't afford to buy it? .

I think it is ok to say "If you want to be a landlord then there are situations in which you will have to give your tennants more security or compensate them appropriately if you evict". It's a balancing of rights. No one has to be a landlord long term.

BarbarianMum It was tried before and the Rent Acts were a disaster.

I cannot cope with this, leaving the thread now but for the last time, house prices are inflated due to 20% of housing stock being owned by Buy To Let landlords and not enough homes being built.
It's not rocket science, why do people keep posting that they are doing a favour to people who can't afford to buy yet they are part of the problem?

Long term contracts work perfectly well on the continent and used to work here with secure long term tenancies. It is perfectly possible to introduce this.

doglikeafox how much was your house and where is it?

I'm a couple years older than you and I can get a mortgage of just under £100k. With the London help to buy I could buy something for around £190k (I think). There were no eligible properties for that price on right move last time I checked.

It would be helpful if I had a partner to buy with but I don't (last guy who broke up with me had 20k in saving ) but I don't want to need a man for this.

Dh and I kept our previous house when we moved. As far as we're concerned, it's an investment that will hopefully provide our two children with a nice sum of money each when we sell it.

We live in an area where there are quite a few second homes. Providing them with money from the sale of that house might help them to stay in the area they're growing up in, should they want to. I don't feel a jot of guilt in keeping our other house and renting it out.

Our children are our responsibility and concern. I'm not interested in anyone else from 'the next generation' and their ability to afford their own home.

Does that make us selfish cunts OP? I couldn't care less if it does.

Andrew it works perfectly well in other countries.

The right to a place that is safe and fit for human habitation? And for that right to be vigorously enforced seeing as in theory it already exists.

One of our tenants' reported us for "damp" to Environmental Health three years ago (it was condensation from the tenants' drying clothes on radiators and not opening the windows to ventilate, they had been told several times) and the matter was taken very seriously on EH's part - they responded very quickly.

Where there is a legal obligation, of course they are enforceable! What an odd statement.

The right to move off a short term contract onto a longer term one after a couple of years (If they want to)?

But on the flip side, as a landlord and the freehold owner of property, I don't want an investment tied up for the long term. I have agricultural investment tied up on long term whole tenancies and it is often generational as to when I can realise there capital value through vacant possession - how is that fair? Who is going to invest in something at a VP market level, and then potentially take a hit on a capital loss if they then need to sell their asset with a sitting tenant, and get 20% knocked off the value?

Andrewofgg I agree, and would add they still are, being generational and in many instances, some fairly cunning restructuring to allow children to succeed their tenancy, often putting another 40+years on a 77 tenancy.